International Criminal Law
42
terrorism and self-determination.
167
Despite some clear-cut acts of terrorism
perpetrated by their members, it is obvious that groups such as the IRA, PKK and
the PLO fall squarely within the parameters of Art 1(4) of the 1977 Protocol I. However,
none of these groups were recognised as having this status, although the PLO was
admitted with observer status in international organisations. It should be noted that,
on the insistence of Turkey, an Annex was attached to General Assembly Resolution
49/60 (1994) identifying terrorism as a factor endangering friendly relations and
territorial integrity. Turkish insistence on the maintenance of ‘territorial integrity’
relates to its interest in labelling Kurdish rebel fighters as terrorists, refusing to allow
them recognition of their legitimate struggle under international law.
168
A similar troublesome situation has arisen with regard to the treatment by the US
military of captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda members. Despite a series of confusing
statements in early 2002, the US Government’s position seems to differentiate
between Taliban and Al-Qaeda members, characterising the latter as unlawful
combatants, while recognising that the former belonged to the forces of a State that
was a party to the Geneva Conventions.
169
Both the Military Order of 13 November
2001 and the US position in general make it clear that the protection and guarantees
afforded under the Geneva Conventions will not apply to Al-Qaeda members.
Certainly, the characterisation of Al-Qaeda fighters as unlawful combatants may to
a certain degree be justified and on account of the gravity of the situation and the
strength of this organisation particular security measures may have to be employed.
However, this does not mean that they are not entitled to fair trial guarantees under
the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I of 1977, Art 75 of which obliges parties to
grant fundamental guarantees to those combatants that do not benefit from more
favourable provisions. Similarly, the use of military commissions against individuals
deemed to fall outside the ambit of armed conflict and humanitarian law presents a
serious contradiction in criminal procedure terms.
170
That is, if one is classified as
falling outside the scope of the laws of war, then the offences accused of having been
committed are common criminal offences, even if extremely serious, but which in
any event are subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
The fact that legitimate national liberation movements may conduct some urban
operations by violating domestic criminal law or international norms does not entail
the passing of such groups into the sphere of terrorist organisations. Rather, any
infractions should be attributed to persons taking a direct or indirect part in these
infractions of the law, in the same way that armies are not outlawed in cases where
their members violate international humanitarian law.
167 ILC,
Report on the Work of Its 48th Session,
UN Doc A/51/10, Supp No 10 (6 May-26 June 1996).
168 Even if the PKK is considered to be outside the context of 1977 Protocol I, Art 1(4), the scale of
military operations between government and rebel forces is unquestionably within the ambit of the
1949 Geneva Conventions, common Art 3, a provision that is part of customary law.
169 Both are to be tried by military commissions, in accordance with Military Order of 13 November
2001, Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, F Reg
57833, vol 66, No 222.
170 See generally DA Mundis, The Use of Military Commissions to Prosecute Individuals Accused of
Terrorist Attacks’, 96
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: